Free Speech in Canada, a myth?

[Argus]

apparently... as evidenced by MLW status update messages... the term 'denialism', particularly in a climate change context, constitutes egregious disrespect. Words... when does the free usage of a generic term impugn a historical account?

Probably when you make insulting terms up to jeer at people because you aren't smart enough to deal with their opinions.

[Argus]

Thats not what he was writing about.

You wrote "Plotting violence against minorities is called conspiracy to commit a crime, and has been on the lawbooks for centuries."

He was asking you to show him the laws to which you were refering.

Plotting violence against ANYONE has been on the law books for centuries. I don't believe there were ever any specific exemptions or applications allowing or forbidding the plotting (conspiracy) of violence against or towards any individual groups.

[Argus]

or how he took my "incitement to violence" and turn it into "plotting violence" there is a difference..

This is a stupid thread drift. Incitement to commit a crime has been illegal under common law for a very long time.

[Argus]

Not allowing her to spew her venom is not a sign of our rights being stripped from us. It's a sign that we will not allow our minorities to be vicmitized by those who would advocate harm against them.

Drivel. Anyone with more than half a brain long ago realized that the purpose of freedom of speech was to protect speech which angered and offended. It has no other purpose. If you exempt offensive speech what then are you protecting?

[CANADIEN]

Hate speech laws can be vague, especially in how they are interpreted. But there is no doubt in my mind that limitation speech that advocate genocide or mass murder is reasonable.

I do believe that freedom of speech in this country is myth.The very fact that the Nationalist Party of Canada cannot gain ground on the political scale should say it all.Its not that they cannot say as the wish but they cannot stand up and be a recognized party BECAUSE they say what their ideals are.

The very fact that the Nationalist Party of Canada cannot gain ground has nnothing to do with the state of free speech, but with the fact most Canadians do not like their cr*p. News to you, free speech does not equates having others agree with what is being said, or being protected from contrary opinions.

As for the fact the Nationalist Party is not registered - all parties have to follow certaib rules, such as having a permanent structure, submitting annual financial reports and (I believe, having at least x number of members). They don't have that, they need to get harder at getting it.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not allowing her to spew her venom is not a sign of our rights being stripped from us. It's a sign that we will not allow our minorities to be vicmitized by those who would advocate harm against them.

Aren't "hate speech" provisions broader than that? No hate speech about killing Taliban or Al Qaeda either!

[Dithers]

Actually she was allowed to speak. Her decision to not speak was her own. Yes the decision was clealy influenced by the earnestness of the protesters, it wasnt due to any Canadian authorities intervention.

To suggest that Canada doesnt have free speech based on the episode with that attention whore from the US is ...in the words of General Hillier..."Ludicrous!"

If that's the case, then it would seem that this classy lady simply can't handle her viewpoints being challenged. Who is it that doesn't value freedom of speech?

[Dithers]

Aren't "hate speech" provisions broader than that? No hate speech about killing Taliban or Al Qaeda either!

I haven't heard any advocating for mass murder of Taliban or Al Queda, so I am not entirely sure what you are on about. Those two entities you mentioned are political/terrorist organizations as well.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Aren't "hate speech" provisions broader than that? No hate speech about killing Taliban or Al Qaeda either!

Hate Propaganda

Advocating genocide

318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Public incitement of hatred

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

( an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

( an offence punishable on summary conviction.

320. (1) A judge who is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing that any publication, copies of which are kept for sale or distribution in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is hate propaganda shall issue a warrant under his hand authorizing seizure of the copies.

320.1 (1) If a judge is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing that there is material that is hate propaganda within the meaning of subsection 320(8) or data within the meaning of subsection 342.1(2) that makes hate propaganda available, that is stored on and made available to the public through a computer system within the meaning of subsection 342.1(2) that is within the jurisdiction of the court, the judge may order the custodian of the computer system to

(a) give an electronic copy of the material to the court;

( ensure that the material is no longer stored on and made available through the computer system; and

© provide the information necessary to identify and locate the person who posted the material.

Hate Propaganda

Edited April 2, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Guest American Woman]

Drivel. Anyone with more than half a brain long ago realized that the purpose of freedom of speech was to protect speech which angered and offended. It has no other purpose.

Of course it does; it has the purpose of preventing people from riling up others to the point of acting on their hate. In other words, it's to protect people from the violent acts that hate sometimes results in.

[bush_cheney2004]

I haven't heard any advocating for mass murder of Taliban or Al Queda, so I am not entirely sure what you are on about. Those two entities you mentioned are political/terrorist organizations as well.

But that's exactly what I am on about. Please reconcile the Canadian government policy and actions for such groups with hate speech laws. Parse individuals from organizations if it helps, but it is not clear to me why "hate speech" would not apply to the wanton destruction of people and places in time of war. Another reason it is rather silly!

[Born Free]

Plotting violence against ANYONE has been on the law books for centuries.

Not in Canada.

[wyly]

here are eight stages of genocide it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where hate speach fits in and why we have laws to prevent it..

Stage Characteristics

1.Classification People are divided into "us and them".

2.Symbolization "When combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups..."

3.Dehumanization "One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases."

4.Organization "Genocide is always organized... Special army units or militias are often trained and armed..."

5.Polarization "Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda..."

6.Preparation "Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity..."

7.Extermination "It is "extermination" to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human."

8.Denial "The perpetrators... deny that they committed any crimes..."

[Argus]

Of course it does; it has the purpose of preventing people from riling up others to the point of acting on their hate. In other words, it's to protect people from the violent acts that hate sometimes results in.

I think you are confused. Free speech allows people to say whatever they want, regardless of who it "riles" up. Free speech says nothing about what to do to or with people who get "riled up".

If you get riled up by what someone says to the point of violence that's handled by the criminal code.

[Argus]

Not in Canada.

It has been part of English Common Law since before there was a Canada and thus was the law here. When Canada began writing its own laws it basically adopted English Common Law and used it - ie making changes based upon changes in England - up until about 1949.

[ToadBrother]

Not in Canada.

WTF are you talking about? Conspiracy to commit any crime is in itself a crime. If I plot to burn down a Jewish community center in just about any country where the legal system descended from the Common Law, I can be convicted. Waddya think happened to Guy Fawkes and the rest of the band of Catholic terrorists who plotted to blow up Parliament? Bad stuff, that's what. Plotting to commit a crime has been unlawful for centuries.

[capricorn]

Apropos free speech.

Philip Pullman's answer this week to a question about offensive content in his latest book, The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ: “No one has the right to live without being shocked. No one has the right to live their life without being offended. Nobody has to read this book. Nobody has to pick it up. Nobody has to open it and if they open it and read it, they don't have to like it, and if you read it and dislike it, you don't have to remain silent about it. You can write to me to complain about it. You can write to the publisher. You can write to the papers. You can write your own book. You can do all those things, but there your rights stop. No one has the right to stop me writing this book. No one has the right to stop it being published or sold. Or bought or read.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadian-ruling-on-offensive-comedy-is-a-gag---but-its-no-joke/article1521532/

[Dithers]

I think you are confused. Free speech allows people to say whatever they want, regardless of who it "riles" up. Free speech says nothing about what to do to or with people who get "riled up".

If you get riled up by what someone says to the point of violence that's handled by the criminal code.

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

For the record, freedoms are not guaranteed when they unreasonably infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others.

What you call "riled up", most would call advocating violence against distinct minorities.

Again, a rather moot point given that she decided to duck and run of her own accord.

[Jack Weber]

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

For the record, freedoms are not guaranteed when they unreasonably infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others.

What you call "riled up", most would call advocating violence against distinct minorities.

Again, a rather moot point given that she decided to duck and run of her own accord.

Is there a concrete line on those "reasonable limits"?That's a pretty vague definition when one thinks about it because it's entirely subjective...

Which brings me to my next question....

Who decided where these "reasonable limits" are?I assume it was the Parliamentarians of the time and the Supreme Court?

Edited April 3, 2010 by Jack Weber

[ToadBrother]

What you call "riled up", most would call advocating violence against distinct minorities.

Could you give some examples of what you consider "inciting violence"? Can you also explain how these could not be dealt with prior to the creation of hate crime legislation?

[Jack Weber]

Could you give some examples of what you consider "inciting violence"? Can you also explain how these could not be dealt with prior to the creation of hate crime legislation?

Excellent question...

[Dithers]

Could you give some examples of what you consider "inciting violence"? Can you also explain how these could not be dealt with prior to the creation of hate crime legislation?

"I don't really like to think of it as a murder. It was terminating Tiller in the 203rd trimester. ... I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don't want to impose my moral values on others."

"If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."

"We need to execute people like (John Walker Lindh) in order to physically intimidate liberals."

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."

"I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo."

As for your point on why it couldn't have been dealt with prior to hate crime legislation, that was never never my point. Nothing in what you quoted remotely implies such, so I will assume you are just trying your level best to derail the topic. Well done.

[bloodyminded]

Drivel. Anyone with more than half a brain long ago realized that the purpose of freedom of speech was to protect speech which angered and offended. It has no other purpose. If you exempt offensive speech what then are you protecting?

Yes, exactly. If we draw strict enough parameters, we can decide that there is "free speech" in North Korea; as citizens are allowed to walk about freely extolling the sublime virtues of Kim. That is allowed.

[Argus]

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

For the record, freedoms are not guaranteed when they unreasonably infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others.

No one has the right to be free of being offended.

What you call "riled up", most would call advocating violence against distinct minorities.

I don't call mocking and insulting drunken lesbians who throw drunks at you "advocating violence".

[Argus]

As for your point on why it couldn't have been dealt with prior to hate crime legislation, that was never never my point. Nothing in what you quoted remotely implies such, so I will assume you are just trying your level best to derail the topic. Well done.

None of the quotes you list would be found to violate the law in Canada. Most of them are taken out of context anyway, and are meant to be outrageous and even humourous. They are not, in other words, any kind of attempt to incite violence.